Non-existence is better than an afterlife

[Walker in Eternity]

I'm an atheist, I probably score a 6.5 on Richard Dawkins' 1 to 7 scale, with 7 being complete non belief.

I was watching Ghost Whisperer yesterday (this is my 0.5% failure) even though I don't believe in the supernatural I do enjoy fiction about it.

Anyway, it set me thinking about death and what happens afterwards and I decided that I prefer the idea of non-existence to any form of afterlife.

I don't want to be reincarnated, I don't want to be judged or have my sins forgiven or paraded before my family and friends. When I'm dead that's it.

In many respects I believe that death can be a mercy, if someone is suffering, either mentally or physically and decides to end it, the last thing they need is an afterlife where either the mental pain can continue or they get sent to hell for committing suicide.

I don't want to die yet and the idea of being dead doesn't worry me, it's just the process of dying that scares me and to a certain extent that won't matter as once I'm dead I will have no conciousness and therefore it won't matter to me.

Does anyone have any similar or conflicting beliefs? Can you convince me that an afterlife is a good thing?

[Clayton_e]

Fellow atheist..

Considering you don't believe I don't understand why you're asking. Pascal's Wager, if there is a God, would do no good as he'd be all knowing and see through it.

If you don't believe you don't. No amount of fairy tales or holy water splashed will change your mind based upon your consideration of whether or not there is an afterlife. If its beyond your reasoning of "convince me an afterlife would rock", say, you think "I don't know if I believe in God or not but I don't think so.. Why should I believe?" then fine, let people tell you imaginary stories of what might happen once your ticker stops ticking.

But if you're trying to hedge your bets to see if its worth it to believe you hang around after I'd say the imaginary fellow up in the sky would see through it and not see kindly to your intentions... What I'm saying is that if that's your train of thought you're going to BURN IN HELL!!!! WITH THE FIRE!!! AND THE BRIMSTONE!!! AND THE RICHARD SIM... wait? He's not... oh... AND THE RICHARD NIXON!

[Walker in Eternity]

Oh, I'm not looking to be converted, I just wanted a good debate with theists about the non-existence of the afterlife.

My basic premise is that a belief in an afterlife is un-necesary and can be detrimental, whereas a belief that the end of life is literally the end can be a fulfilling and uplifting belief system in itself.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my OP.

[Harlequin]

My basic premise is that a belief in an afterlife is un-necesary and can be detrimental, whereas a belief that the end of life is literally the end can be a fulfilling and uplifting belief system in itself.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my OP.

I didn't take from it what Clayton_e took from it, but I didn't get that you wanted to debate belief in afterlife so much as afterlife itself. I agree with you that there is nothing inherently better about belief in afterlife than a lack of such belief, but in your OP you seem to say that you'd rather not have an afterlife, regardless of your belief in it. On that I cannot agree. Heaven would rock.

[AllWalker]

I would say that most afterlifes would be better than none at all. Existence is, after all, pretty sweet. Heaven would, by definition, be good. Reincarnation would be pretty cool. Being an emotionless, transdimensional echo would be strange. It's only when we start getting into the Peter Hamilton Night's Dawn Trilogy version of the afterlife and worse, Hell, that existence starts becoming not so good. Even then, I'd probably take it.

As to the side issue of whether I believe in any form of afterlife - the questions, in my mind, "Do humans experience life after death" is on the same level as "Do computers continue to process after they break?". My answer to both is, why the crap would they?

[Rube E. Tewesday]

Atheist here, or maybe an agnostic with strong atheist tendencies. I've come to accept that there's no afterlife, and while it's less scary than believing in Hell, it's kind of a downer that I can't look forward to being around, having fun, forever. (As me. I've always found reincarnation kind of scary -- just taking on new lives, going through all the stresses of learning a new life, maybe dying horribly over and over --- and not even knowing that you're doing it until your dead and waiting for your next incarnation....yuck).

[jali]

"Forever and ever and ever" always scared me more than the thought of actually dying. It's what has always kept me from embracing religion. I don't want the prize they offer.

Life is precious to me, partly because it's finite.

[Harlequin]

"Forever and ever and ever" always scared me more than the thought of actually dying.

"Forever" is among the scariest words there are, but only if whatever you're doing forever sucks. Being happy forever - I could adjust to that.

[Walker in Eternity]

I agree with you that there is nothing inherently better about belief in afterlife than a lack of such belief, but in your OP you seem to say that you'd rather not have an afterlife, regardless of your belief in it. On that I cannot agree. Heaven would rock.

It's true, I would rather there was no afterlife.

I could accept an eternal life here (some form of technological fix) provided there was a get out clause, but I find the idea of eternity in heaven/hell to be suffering beyond words.

Both seem bad, but for different reasons.

Hell - Pain etc
Heaven - Eternally singing the praises of God and baskingin his reflected glory, how amazingly dull.

Like Jali said, life is precious because it's finite, that's why theists find it so easy to kill, they are not destroying you only sending your soul to God/Allah/whoever.

[What Exit?]

I think it depends on what afterlife is. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic versions sounds awful but the Summer Country has some appeal as does the idea that you go to the version of heaven you think it should be. Called it an Id Paradise.

However I find it doubtful that there is an afterlife that is anything remotely like what religions attempt to describe and that there is a good chance of non-existence. I don't have any faith and I don't really seem to be capable of faith. My mind questions too much and from too early an age.

[Cluricaun]

I was watching Ghost Whisperer yesterday (this is my 0.5% failure) even though I don't believe in the supernatural I do enjoy Jennifer Love Hewitt's increadible knockers.

FTFY. I'm a stone athiest and I'll watch that when there's nothing else going on Friday evening. 8-)

[Walker in Eternity]

I was watching Ghost Whisperer yesterday (this is my 0.5% failure) even though I don't believe in the supernatural I do enjoy Jennifer Love Hewitt's increadible knockers.

FTFY. I'm a stone athiest and I'll watch that when there's nothing else going on Friday evening. 8-)

My OP looks better now that you're re-written it.

What does FTFY mean?

[Walker in Eternity]

I think it depends on what afterlife is. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic versions sounds awful but the Summer Country has some appeal as does the idea that you go to the version of heaven you think it should be. Called it an Id Paradise.

However I find it doubtful that there is an afterlife that is anything remotely like what religions attempt to describe and that there is a good chance of non-existence. I don't have any faith and I don't really seem to be capable of faith. My mind questions too much and from too early an age.

I agree with the first bit, what is the Summer Country and where can I go to read about it?

I am too questioning as well to find any satisfactory answers in religious dogma, maybe that's why I'm in my chosen career (scientist in training).

[Cluricaun]

What does FTFY mean?

Fixed That For You.

Really that show pushes just about all of my anti-spiritual buttons. Mashes them with an open palm really, but I can put all that aside if there's a "wrapped in a towel" scene or a "wearing a sundress" scene.

Hell, even my girlfriend refers to it as the Tit Whisperer.

[Harlequin]

Heaven - Eternally singing the praises of God and baskingin his reflected glory, how amazingly dull.

That's not my heaven.

[Revenant Threshold]

I'm pretty much fine with things that fall under the general heading of "good", as long as it isn't permanent. I think i'd get annoyed with anything that happened literally forever. If you can chose to do different things - even have a bit of oblivion for a while, if possible - that'd be the best for me, I think.

[phouka]

Since nearly all religious concepts of heaven and hell have some physical frame of reference to them, I say they're hooey. I'm not going to be standing before a throne, because God doesn't have a butt, a lap, or a need for me to bow to him/her/them/whatever. I'm not going to be floating on a cloud watching my loved ones, because an eternity of voyeurism isn't a very appealing reward.

I thoroughly understand the need to believe that our loved ones still exist in some form after they die, and that we won't simply end in oblivion when we die. But no matter what happens, it has no bearing on our mortal lives. We die. The only thing that's left is our mortal remains, which are dealt with as our loved ones think best.

[Ludovic]

I recently ranked the relative merits of most styles of afterlife versus nonexistence:

1) Forever in a changing, stimulating environment with no death or pain, with your exact stream of consciousness magically teleported over to the new place. Oh, and everyone goes there, even nearly-sapient animals. However, no afterlife in religion that I know of contains this.

2) Forever in a blissful yet static environment where you are basically lobotomized enough to not get bored of this, but where most of your stream of consciousness makes it over the fence. Oh, and everyone gets in, even the ones that God made evil. This is slightly more common but by no means widespead among believers.

3) This is tied between three things:
-- Same as #2, but God Picks Sides, and casts most people into Hell. (This is coming from the perspective of someone who gets in of course.)
-- Same as #2, but your mind is so altered that you're basically not the same person anymore.
-- Nonexistence. If you're not the same person anymore, what does it matter (btw I also think most sci-fi teleportation schemes also mean that you're not the same person at the end so take that for what it's worth.)

I can't tell if nonexistence, lobotomization, or god picking sides would be better overall.

4) Hades. Basically the opposite of #2. A boring environment where you're lobotomized to be passive, and everyone gets in.

5) All situations in which you are on the wrong end of God Picking Sides and suffer an eternity of torture. In other words, the vast majority of religions that contain the concept of Hell.

6) A sadistic God that casts everyone into Hell just for the fun of it.

[Walker in Eternity]

Great post Ludovic, I think you've covered all the bases. Which do you prefer?

[Walker in Eternity]

What does FTFY mean?

Fixed That For You.

Really that show pushes just about all of my anti-spiritual buttons. Mashes them with an open palm really, but I can put all that aside if there's a "wrapped in a towel" scene or a "wearing a sundress" scene.

Hell, even my girlfriend refers to it as the Tit Whisperer.

I see, thanks for the fix.

[Ludovic]

Great post Ludovic, I think you've covered all the bases. Which do you prefer?

It goes in order from #1 on down in terms of which, if it were real, I would prefer. So in essence, I'm torn between whether non-existence would be better than a Heaven where I would mostly get to (besides the parts of me that can get bored and inquisitive,) and where the majority of non-believers were tortured forever.

But it would be better than an afterlife in which I'm tortured forever, which by the extension of Pascal's Wager there's a 99% + chance I would be if there is One True Religion, and also better than a Hades where my personality mostly transfers but where I spend forever bored and apathetic.

I didn't cover Buddhism and the reincarnating religions, but they are basically equivalent to non-existence since there is no way to follow the chain of consciousness back to your former existence once you merge with everything and/or get reborn.

[Nzinga, Seated]

"Forever and ever and ever" always scared me more than the thought of actually dying. It's what has always kept me from embracing religion. I don't want the prize they offer.

Life is precious to me, partly because it's finite.

jali, I am on the exact same page with you. Except, I can think of a ton of other things that keep me from embracing religion, too. So could you if you thought about if for half a minute.

[Baldwin]

People I cared about have died; it's hard to accept that they simply don't exist anymore. But, there's no reason to think there's an afterlife, and I can't imagine a mechanism for it to work. Our minds are created by the patterns of neural impulses in our brains; destroy that and we just don't exist.

(One of the long-time posters on SDMB, who should have been banned years ago, would normally be in here declaring, with absolutely no evidence, that we don't actually think with our brains at all, but with some immaterial spirit brain that exists on a different plane. Fortunately, he doesn't seem to have migrated over to Domebo.)

On the other hand, in a Universe incomprehensibly vast in space and time, who knows? But what we do know is that we've got this life, here and now. Mine's pretty good.

[Walker in Eternity]

Heaven - Eternally singing the praises of God and baskingin his reflected glory, how amazingly dull.

That's not my heaven.

Maybe not, but as far as I can tell it's what the Bible says to expect.

[Walker in Eternity]

Great post Ludovic, I think you've covered all the bases. Which do you prefer?

It goes in order from #1 on down in terms of which, if it were real, I would prefer. So in essence, I'm torn between whether non-existence would be better than a Heaven where I would mostly get to (besides the parts of me that can get bored and inquisitive,) and where the majority of non-believers were tortured forever.

Sorry, I didn't read your post closely enough.

{quote] But it would be better than an afterlife in which I'm tortured forever, which by the extension of Pascal's Wager there's a 99% + chance I would be if there is One True Religion, and also better than a Hades where my personality mostly transfers but where I spend forever bored and apathetic.
[/quote]

I'm not keen on Pascal's wager as it leads to a number of problems, if there is a god, how do you know you've picked the "right" one? It seems to me that with the exception of Hinduism (which seems to be more relaxed in this way) most of the major world religions claim to have the one and only path to god, which if you don't follow you get a one way trip to hell. So even if you follow Pascal you could still end up damned. Plus if you are only covering your bases surely an omniscient god would know and treat you accordingly?

I would rather maintain my staunch atheism and if I'm wrong I'll stand before Yahweh/Allah/Anubis/Odin/whoever and be judged accordingly, at least I'm honest in my non belief rather than maintaining a false belief to avoid hell, which you may not do anyway as you may pick the wrong team. I don't mean the you in this sentence persoanlly BTW, just a general "you".

[Harlequin]

[quote=Walker in Eternity]

Heaven - Eternally singing the praises of God and baskingin his reflected glory, how amazingly dull.

That's not my heaven.

Maybe not, but as far as I can tell it's what the Bible says to expect.[/quote:2gixyyaw]I can't figure out if this thread is about afterlife in general (as your OP seems to indicate) or about specific beliefs about the afterlife.

[Walker in Eternity]

Doesn't matter, either you believe in an afterlife, in which case take your pick of a system, or you don't in which case oblivion here we come. I hold with the latter. As someone brought up nominally C of E, I have a (slightly) better understanding of this rather than any other belief system, so was just using it as an example.

[Harlequin]

It does matter. When I'm saying that heaven would rock I'm not talking about whatever the Church of England preaches. Are we discussing whether nonexistence is better than an afterlife regardless of the nature of that afterlife, or are we discussing whether nonexistence is better than a particular hypothesized afterlife?

[ivan astikov]

For any vestige of our consciousness to pass over into an 'afterlife', this would require the pain of mental torment to travel with you. Any existence that nullified such 'mental trauma' would be killing exactly what made you you. So, whatever 'survived' would not become part of a cosmic whole, but more like inured to what once made you human.

[Walker in Eternity]

For any vestige of our consciousness to pass over into an 'afterlife', this would require the pain of mental torment to travel with you. Any existence that nullified such 'mental trauma' would be killing exactly what made you you. So, whatever 'survived' would not become part of a cosmic whole, but more like inured to what once made you human.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make, but you did it sooner and better, thanks.

[danceswithcats]

My fundie parents would drag us to church, and then criticize the other members on the way home for all of their misdeeds.

Screw that. I don't want an eternity spent with hypocrites, nor do I want one spent with an egotist who wants eternal praise.

I'll take 'Dirtnap', thanks.

[Chimera]

Well, I'm skipping a bunch of what is being said in order to say this;

Even if the "afterlife" was to exist in this universe in a non-corporeal form, without reincarnation, until the end of the universe itself..

I'd still take it, assuming that I could then choose to end it at any time. Might take me a couple of million years before I got terminally bored and then decided to end it, but at least I'd have the chance to do more, see more, learn more and then decide when I'd had enough.

If I was God, that's be the afterlife that I would offer my creations. Spend as much time as you'd like, doing what you want. When you're done, come back to me and release yourself into me. Rejoin the Godhead.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Like Jali said, life is precious because it's finite, that's why theists find it so easy to kill, they are not destroying you only sending your soul to God/Allah/whoever.

This is unfair. One could (and there was a huge Pit thread about it on the Dope) just as easily say that atheists "find it so easy to kill" because they know they won't be punished for it after they die. There's really no reason why atheists should need to care about killing people. And really, violent atheistic movements have been no less murderous than violent religious movements; in fact, they have been much more murderous, but this may mainly be simply caused by the fact that they took place after the invention of efficient killing machines.

I don't understand the viewpoint expressed by the OP. I would prefer even a Greek Hades-type afterlife to dying forever. In fact, I've often thought with religious such as Hinduism and Buddhism that I'd prefer to keep being reincarnated than to become one with the great spirit collective, but that may just be me. However, I would also day that the most important aspect of any afterlife is that the evil are punished, but in proportion to their crimes, not for eternity.

[Badtz Maru]

I'm an atheist, probably about a 6.9 on Dawkin's scale.

I would like to have an afterlife as long as it was not torturous. I don't want my existence to end, and I feel like the time given us is too short. I gave this a lot of thought when I was working at a monotonous and unpleasant job in an old factory without air conditioning in the Texas summer. I was thinking about how my work was hellish, and started thinking about if I had to spend eternity in that factory, sticking wood in mortisers and sweeping sawdust at 100+ degree temperatures. After giving it some thought, I decided I would choose that over non-existence. At least I'd still have my thoughts and imagination to entertain me (I did some serious daydreaming during those 11 hour shifts). I considered it, and hell could be pretty bad and I'd still prefer it over non-existence. Not non-stop excruciating pain, of course, but nothing anyone would enjoy. I might go mad from it after a while, but that is a kind of end in a way. I accept that I will probably suffer a lot at the end of my natural life, I can accept that I would suffer later in my afterlife too.

If you add in the option to end your afterlife at will, I would like the option even more.

Though I'm an atheist, I still think I may have an afterlife of sorts. I'm hoping that a technology to upload our consciousnesses into a computer will exist before I die. There's also a strong chance that we will have some form of physical immortality sometime in the next 50 years or so as well. If that doesn't happen, I'm hoping that, as I get older, my mind will crack and I'll start believing in an afterlife so death won't be so scary. It's part of why I go to church, I've heard of lots of people who became believers later in life, and I'd like that to happen to me.

[Vox Imperatoris]

Though I'm an atheist, I still think I may have an afterlife of sorts. I'm hoping that a technology to upload our consciousnesses into a computer will exist before I die. There's also a strong chance that we will have some form of physical immortality sometime in the next 50 years or so as well. If that doesn't happen, I'm hoping that, as I get older, my mind will crack and I'll start believing in an afterlife so death won't be so scary. It's part of why I go to church, I've heard of lots of people who became believers later in life, and I'd like that to happen to me.

That's my hope as well, and I posted a GD thread on the Dope once talking about whether a digitally uploaded conscience would still be "you". I argued that it wouldn't be, for the simple reason that there's no reason it couldn't produce two of you, and you obviously can't be two consciousnesses at the same time. That is, a likeness of you might go on and be indistinguishable to others, but you'd be dead and not there to enjoy it.

ETA: I figure that, even without taking into account improved medical technologies besides a way to stop aging, I could stick around to at least 80 (my family does tend to be pretty long-lived, especially on my father's side), and that's 2072. One can hope.

[ivan astikov]

Uploading of consciousness is not going to be achieved until science fully understands the human brain. I don't know how far away we are from that, but I'll be surprised if it happens in my lifetime. And even if they invented immortality pills, I doubt I'd be able to afford them, even if I was made aware of their existence.

Nope, I think I'll have to hope for reincarnation to get an extension on my existence.

[Walker in Eternity]

Uploading of consciousness is not going to be achieved until science fully understands the human brain. I don't know how far away we are from that, but I'll be surprised if it happens in my lifetime. And even if they invented immortality pills, I doubt I'd be able to afford them, even if I was made aware of their existence.

Nope, I think I'll have to hope for reincarnation to get an extension on my existence.

The problem with reincarnation is that you have to go back to the start each time. If you could start out with a set of memories and skills it would be better.

I like the idea of a download, but like you say the chances of it happening in my lifetime and me being able to afford it are unlikely. As to whether it would still be me, I think it would as over the course of our lives almost every cell in our bodies are replaced (sometimes several times). If the copy had my memories it would be as much me as me. If I was dead then the something that carried on would have my memories and therefore be indistinguishable from me.

I have found a possible atheist afterlife, not sure whether it is actually possible or not but it sounds like it has some possibilities.

In 2001 by Arthur Clarke, he postulates that the builders of the monolith stored their conciousnesses in the fabric of spacetime.

Is it possible that our memories and perosnalities could be recorded at some quantum level in spacetime? If so would that account for the paranormal such as ghosts?

One other theory suggested that, in a universe that expanded and then contracted into a "big crunch", the arrow of time might reverse so we would all return to life living our lives backwards as the universe contracted. This theory now seems unlikely as the universe appears to be expanding forever and may end up in a "big rip" as the fabric of spacetime is torn apart.

For those that belive in an afterlife, what happens to heaven/hell/nirvana etc when the universe ends? Even Clarke's atheist afterlife wouldn't survive that.

[Badtz Maru]

This also ties into the possibility that we are in a simulation already. It stands to reason that, when computing power becomes great enough, that people will want to run simulations of past societies for a variety of reasons. Our time would probably be one of the more likely to get simulated, because we are clearly in a period of transition and the amount of information about our time is far greater than in previous generations, so they'll have a lot to work with, assuming that the vast amount of digital information tracking our lives is available to future archaeologists. Assuming that there is just one real universe, and that we have billions of years in our future to build simulations, it seems likely that we are in a simulation.

In that case, there could be all kinds of afterlives potentially available to us. Our simulation may have been created by beings with empathy for people of our time, and after the simulation has completed our minds could be transferred to a nice place, or it could have been created by someone who just wanted to make sure that those in our times they see as evil get punished, and we could have a virtual eternity of suffering ahead of us. Maybe they are interested in having people from our times brought into their reality - if they are all uploaded minds in this future, maybe they'll let us join them in their simulation. If they still have physical bodies, maybe they'll transfer our minds into new bodies so we can live in the far future and they can chill with awesome historical people. Or maybe they just delete us when they are done with the simulation.

[ivan astikov]

ETA: I figure that, even without taking into account improved medical technologies besides a way to stop aging, I could stick around to at least 80 (my family does tend to be pretty long-lived, especially on my father's side), and that's 2072. One can hope.

I'll be 110 then, ya whippersnapper!

So don't you be giving cheek to your elders.

[Vox Imperatoris]

I like the idea of a download, but like you say the chances of it happening in my lifetime and me being able to afford it are unlikely. As to whether it would still be me, I think it would as over the course of our lives almost every cell in our bodies are replaced (sometimes several times). If the copy had my memories it would be as much me as me. If I was dead then the something that carried on would have my memories and therefore be indistinguishable from me.

But your neurons are the major exception—they live until you die and never replicate after your initial growth as a fetus.

Also, even if the copy was indistinguishable from you, what good would it do? What about a scenario where you're "uploaded" and then sedated for the rest of your life, while the copy lives on, or if you both just went your separate ways? You obviously wouldn't experience any of the thoughts and emotions of the copy, so the whole thing is kind of worthless as a method of actually living forever, as opposed to just continuing your lineage, which most people try to do through their children.

I do think that maybe some form of gradual mechanical replacement, such as replacing neurons one-at-a-time with artificial neurons, might solve this problem because the line of consciousness would remain unbroken.

ETA: I don't see the problem with the end of the universe and any form of afterlife except the Dharmic reincarnation afterlife. Either the Messiah would have already come back to save the good people and destroy the souls of the evil ones (thus ending the world before the natural processes get around to it), or it would just keep on ticking without any new visitors.

[Walker in Eternity]

But your neurons are the major exception—they live until you die and never replicate after your initial growth as a fetus.[/quote[

Is that correct? I know it used to be thought that brain cells didn't reproduce, but I'm sure I read of a study recently that claimed that it was possible.

Also, even if the copy was indistinguishable from you, what good would it do? What about a scenario where you're "uploaded" and then sedated for the rest of your life, while the copy lives on, or if you both just went your separate ways? You obviously wouldn't experience any of the thoughts and emotions of the copy, so the whole thing is kind of worthless as a method of actually living forever, as opposed to just continuing your lineage, which most people try to do through their children.

The copy would only be any good if you were actually dying when it was made or killed in the process, like in Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space Series, where the process of copying your neural information destroys your brain. On the other hand maybe you could blend memories with the copy at a later date if you were still alive to do so. Any copy would only be accurate up until the time it separates from the original as new events will affect the way it performs. Although in theory a perfect copy would respond in exactly the same way as the original.

[quote:9z10wme8] I do think that maybe some form of gradual mechanical replacement, such as replacing neurons one-at-a-time with artificial neurons, might solve this problem because the line of consciousness would remain unbroken.

I could go with that if it were physically possible.

{quote] ETA: I don't see the problem with the end of the universe and any form of afterlife except the Dharmic reincarnation afterlife. Either the Messiah would have already come back to save the good people and destroy the souls of the evil ones (thus ending the world before the natural processes get around to it), or it would just keep on ticking without any new visitors.[/quote:9z10wme8]

So in your opinion any afterlife would continue after the end of the universe? What if it was linked to the universe?

[Badtz Maru]

[quote=Vox Imperatoris][quote="Walker in Eternity":rfp4a2uo]I like the idea of a download, but like you say the chances of it happening in my lifetime and me being able to afford it are unlikely. As to whether it would still be me, [b]I think it would as over the course of our lives almost every cell in our bodies are replaced (sometimes several times)[/b]. If the copy had my memories it would be as much me as me. If I was dead then the something that carried on would have my memories and therefore be indistinguishable from me.[/quote]

But your neurons are the major exception—they live until you die and never replicate after your initial growth as a fetus.[/quote:rfp4a2uo]

I seem to recall something I read lately that says that scientists have found that this is actually not true, that there is growth of new neurons after birth.

Well, after doing some googling, this is all I could find, and it doesn't say anything about new neurons - [url="http://www.physorg.com/news9388.html"]http://www.physorg.com/news9388.html[/url]. I could have sworn I read about actual new neurons, not just new growth on existing neurons.

[Vox Imperatoris]

So in your opinion any afterlife would continue after the end of the universe? What if it was linked to the universe?

If angels could dance on the head of a pin, how many could do it at the same time? It's a meaningless question to anyone who doesn't believe in that afterlife. I guess an afterlife linked to the universe would end with the universe.

[Clayton_e]

Vox put it well there.. Why, exactly, are we bothering with this debate?

Could we put in a forum titled "Unanswerable questions, Witness Here"

[Walker in Eternity]

Vox put it well there.. Why, exactly, are we bothering with this debate?

Could we put in a forum titled "Unanswerable questions, Witness Here"

But then you would have to the same with any thread that touched faith based issues.

[Vox Imperatoris]

[quote=Walker in Eternity]

Vox put it well there.. Why, exactly, are we bothering with this debate?

Could we put in a forum titled "Unanswerable questions, Witness Here"

But then you would have to the same with any thread that touched faith based issues.[/quote:lgnk8ogf]

I didn't mean to totally dismiss the question, but the nature of your question necessarily defined what the answer had to be.

[ivan astikov]

I'm not so against the "unanswerable questions" bit, but then again, I've always enjoyed tangents in conversations, and who likes exploring places they know like the back of their hand?

[garygnu]

I the afterlife was everything I wanted it to be, it would be awesome. It would be much better than non-existence.
The problem with the afterlifes the OP is referring to is that they’re all being described by someone else as everything they want it to be.

[TooSchoolforCool]

I think it's sort of silly to claim to know whether an afterlife, particularly one which could be of all sorts of different natures, would be bad or not. All the human beings we are familiar with live at most for a about a century, and most spend the latter years with declining mental function. We have no way to know what it might be like, what sort of psychology and life stages and acceptance and so forth would come from such a radically different situation as having a life history that spanned many many more years than that, let alone infinitely.

[Harlequin]

I the afterlife was everything I wanted it to be, it would be awesome. It would be much better than non-existence.
The problem with the afterlifes the OP is referring to is that they’re all being described by someone else as everything they want it to be.

Yes, that's what I've been trying to say. If we're discussing nonexistence in general versus afterlife in general, that's one thing. If it's "Would you prefer nonexistence to this particular notion of the afterlife?", it's more of a poll.